as a way of improving efficiency within the pentagon. i'd say that applies to all the other agencies as well. secondly, most of the concern about sequestration is focused on readiness and training which is absolutely true. if you talk to the lawyers that work at defense contractors, they think they're going to have a field kay. and some -- we've even had testimony last year in the house armed services committee that the legal hassles emanating from sequestration may eat up a lot of the savings. but beyond that, as senator ayotte and lindsey referenced, there's a lot of dangerous places in the world. and what we do is try to develop capability to deal with the unknowable contingencies of what could happen at a place like syria or iran or north korea. with less money, you can prepare for fewer contingencies. and so the point is, it's not just readiness, it's not just lawyers' pockets, this also hurts us in the real world today. final point is, there's lots of options to deal with this. as was mentioned, the house passed bills twice last ye